Saturday, March 19, 2016

Lawrence Krauss’ Monumental Blunder(s)

Truly a Bogey Moment

In tonight’s “What’s Behind It All? God, Science, and the Universe,” debate, the topic of protein evolution induced a long sequence of blunders. Lawrence Krauss attempted to compare a protein to a snowflake. If snowflakes spontaneously arise, then why not protein-coding genes? When Stephen Meyer called him on his absurdity, Krauss doubled down, making the ludicrous claim that there is “a lot of information” in a snowflake, and that Shannon’s information theorem “would tell you that.”

That is a monumental level of ignorance. This is a live debate, and speakers can misspeak and make mistakes. There’s nothing wrong with that. We all make mistakes, and people can take it back. But doubling down and reasserting a sheer absurdity is different. Krauss obviously really believes what he said.

If that was not enough, Krauss followed this with the equally absurd claim that the Sun’s energy fuels protein evolution. “Fortunately we have the Sun,” concluded the religiously-driven atheist.

Next Krauss made the age-old claim that “We’re coming very close to an origin of life solution.” This has been the standard line since Alexander Oparin predicted in 1924 that origin of life research would be solved “very, very soon.” Unfortunately, evolutionists do not reckon with the actual science. Their statements are driven by their dogma.

Finally Krauss made the oxymoronic statement that “neoDarwinism is an oxymoron—it doesn’t mean anything.” Krauss was literally flying from one absurdity to the next in his attempt to dodge the facts.

NeoDarwinism an oxymoron? By this time I was no longer surprised by anything the evolutionist said. If the origin of life is practically solved, if a snowflake’s information is comparable to that of a protein, if the Sun’s energy does it all, then hey, why not. NeoDarwinism must be an oxymoron.

An equiprobable set of symbols maximizes entropy. It deals with a sequence, not a structure. You evolutionists have completely discredited yourselves.

Your blunders are not only monumental, you don't even realize it when you are disabused of them. Evolutionists are laughable. They say the world arose spontaneously. That's straight out of Epicureanism.

A snowflake is not a biological agent. its not dealing with the unique biological processes of its nature and its origin. Snowflakes are about physics alone. Unless chemistry kicks in.There are no men of science but only men of a particular subject in a spectrum of knowledge called science for some dumb reason.The person only knows what they know. Like everyone else. Knowing one subject doesn't mean you know another ESPECIALLY at the higher standard of knowledge they call science.

A snowflake is not a biological agent. its not dealing with the unique biological processes of its nature and its origin. Snowflakes are about physics alone. Unless chemistry kicks in.There are no men of science but only men of a particular subject in a spectrum of knowledge called science for some dumb reason.The person only knows what they know. Like everyone else. Knowing one subject doesn't mean you know another ESPECIALLY at the higher standard of knowledge they call science.

Krauss is a scientist who should know about computer learning algorithms. And yet he claims that Google's AlphaGo program is an example of an evolutionary algorithm. How wronger can he get? I know a lot about AlphaGo's internal design and I can assure Krauss that there is nothing evolutionary about it. AlphaGo uses a purely directed search based on deep learning (deep neural network), the Monte Carlo algorithm and reinforcement learning.

Krauss claims that there is a lack of design evidence in nature when, in fact, everything in nature, from the lowly photon to electrons and neutrons have design written all over them.

Dr Krauss’ claim that science is on the verge of solving the OOL mystery, is just a ‘Hope & a Prayer’. Krauss’ ilk claimed that over 63Yrs ago w Urey-Miller & Yet…

Dr Krauss’ Pnt 1 is sooo lame only a hard-core dogmatic Darwinian strict-materialist could make it & then double-down on it!! First of all ice crystals unlike living proteins, have nothing to do w living organisms. Uhm Dr Krauss the living human body is 70% LIQUID Water, NOT 70% Ice, NOR even 1% ice.- as it would have to be since body-temp = 98.6*F / 37*C & water freezes at 32*F / 0*C- Duhh!!! Ice crystals like all inert matter crystals contain little useful info [& NO bio-info] except that when water freezes into ice, its structure tends to form & become crystallized such that it expands, thus slightly lessening it’s mass-density- which is why ice floats on top of water. Living Proteins on the other-hand are formed by & contain loads of biological info- IE: Ice crystals have NO link to DNA, RNA, etc while living Proteins obviously do- Duhh!!!

RE: Krauss’ lame Pnt-2: This is Darwinists strict-materialists’ standard talking-point vs the obvious point that Darwinian evolution seems to conflict w the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [& just plain ole common sense]- IE: It can all be explained away based on Sun-Light alone. Now obviously Sun-light is absolutely necessary to sustain Earth’s biosphere- but it alone is an insufficient explanation. Otherwise why is there NO life at-all on Venus which gets twice the sun-light intensity as we here on Earth do, NOR on the Moon which on aver gets the same amount of sunlight as Earth does, & this most likely also holds for Mars which gets about 40% of the amount of sun-light intensity as Earth does. Yet the fact is Dr Krauss, one’s far more likely to find evidence for life in/on an aver piece of granite, marble &/or lava stone(s) from/on Earth, than on ALL of Venus & the Moon put together- & most likely Mars too!! My Point: There’s obviously far more to the development of life on Earth, than just sun-light alone- Duhh!!!

IMO It’s hard to believe Dr Krauss actually believes such BS, & if he really does as a so-called ‘top’ ‘scientist’, then Lord Help ‘Science’, & save us for ‘scientists’ like Dr Krauss & his ilk!!!

Ghostrider: Another Creationist who doesn't understand what Shannon information is. Again, not in the least bit surprising.

Would care to state your scientific credentials?

So both Cornelius and myself have advanced degrees on the hard side of STEM, mine in electrical engineering with specialization in classical and discrete-time signals and systems, and his in physics. You should be careful here, especially if you are not trained as I am, but maybe you are. Shannon information by definition can be quantified; the 'information' in a snowflake cannot. Facsimiles of snowflake have Shannon information, and if a facsimile of a snowflake exists (as image, description, specifications, etc.), then a human mind is involved which is one of the requirements for quantifying Shannon information. The 'information' in a snowflake is not Shannon information because it would have to encompass the position of every molecule in the structure and other parameters such as the designation of isotopes, molecular bonds, impurity descriptions, position, etc. And the position and size of microscopic and macroscopic liquid domains, their size, shape and locations, orientations and dynamic mapping of flow rate magnitude and direction if on the surface, molecular state, vaporization accounting for the loss of structure mass, and change in shape due to the preceding, properly accounted for in a multi-dimensional mapping. If suspended in air, a complete mapping of motion, if clustered, the it will bond to its neighbor and is no longer a snowflake, and this would be described. A complete time accounting of the thermodynamic state of every molecule at all boundaries including position and kinetic energy.

In short, no human mind ever in the lifetime of the universe could or would do this. But another type of mind could and so Krauss, by stating that a snowflake has information, cannot be referring to Shannon information but 'information' of an entirely different type knowable by a kind of mind not at all human.

And BTW would you care discuss your addiction to the word "creationist" as a kind of attempted and juvenile insult? You should be more careful on here.

Shannon information by definition can be quantified; the 'information' in a snowflake cannot.

Wrong. Theoretically the position of each molecule could be described = Shannon information. Just no one has bothered to do it yet.

What is your definition of information as it applies to DNA? How do you quantify this "information"?

Francis Crick back in 1950 defined information in DNA to be "the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein." By that definition known unguided evolutionary processes like gene duplication and SNPs produce new sequences and therefore new information. The Creationist inane claim that only an intelligence can produce the information in DNA is just one of the reasons science doesn't take them seriously.

The entire ID argument is by comparison to a single known intelligence; humans. Humans use a sequential language, programmers use a sequential code, DNA is sequential. Humans use intelligence to produce language and computer code, therefor DNA must be the result of intelligence.

No real scientist would infer a best explanation based on zero degrees of freedom.

Dr Krauss’ claim that science is on the verge of solving the OOL mystery, is just a ‘Hope & a Prayer’. Krauss’ ilk claimed that over 63Yrs ago w Urey-Miller & Yet…

Dr Krauss’ Pnt 1 is sooo lame only a hard-core dogmatic Darwinian strict-materialist could make it & then double-down on it!! First of all ice crystals unlike living proteins, have nothing to do w living organisms. Uhm Dr Krauss the living human body is 70% LIQUID Water, NOT 70% Ice, NOR even 1% ice.- as it would have to be since body-temp = 98.6*F / 37*C & water freezes at 32*F / 0*C- Duhh!!! Ice crystals like all inert matter crystals contain little useful info [& NO bio-info] except that when water freezes into ice, its structure tends to form & become crystallized such that it expands, thus slightly lessening it’s mass-density- which is why ice floats on top of water. Living Proteins on the other-hand are formed by & contain loads of biological info- IE: Ice crystals have NO link to DNA, RNA, etc while living Proteins obviously do- Duhh!!!

RE: Krauss’ lame Pnt-2: This is Darwinists strict-materialists’ standard talking-point vs the obvious point that Darwinian evolution seems to conflict w the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [& just plain ole common sense]- IE: It can all be explained away based on Sun-Light alone. Now obviously Sun-light is absolutely necessary to sustain Earth’s biosphere- but it alone is an insufficient explanation. Otherwise why is there NO life at-all on Venus which gets twice the sun-light intensity as we here on Earth do, NOR on the Moon which on aver gets the same amount of sunlight as Earth does, & this most likely also holds for Mars which gets about 40% of the amount of sun-light intensity as Earth does. Yet the fact is Dr Krauss, one’s far more likely to find evidence for life in/on an aver piece of granite, marble &/or lava stone(s) from/on Earth, than on ALL of Venus & the Moon put together- & most likely Mars too!! My Point: There’s obviously far more to the development of life on Earth, than just sun-light alone- Duhh!!!

IMO It’s hard to believe Dr Krauss actually believes such BS, & if he really does as a so-called ‘top’ ‘scientist’, then Lord Help ‘Science’, & save us for ‘scientists’ like Dr Krauss & his ilk!!!

How must Proteins be folded to make them functional: Very Specifically -vs- Snow-flake 'folds': Does NOT Apply

How many living things are made of functional proteins: ALL known Living-Things Are -vs- How many living-things are formed from Ice [crystals]: NONE / Absolute ZERO.

Etc, etc, etc...

Thus anyone who really believes snow-flakes have anywhere near the same amount of functional info [let alone bio-info] as [living functional] Proteins, are just plain 'flaky' & 'shaky', & don't deserve to be called 'scientific'!!!

How must Proteins be folded to make them functional: Very Specifically -vs- Snow-flake 'folds': Does NOT Apply

How many living things are made of functional proteins: ALL known Living-Things Are -vs- How many living-things are formed from Ice [crystals]: NONE / Absolute ZERO.

Etc, etc, etc...

Thus anyone who really believes snow-flakes have anywhere near the same amount of functional info [let alone bio-info] as [living functional] Proteins, are just plain 'flaky' & 'shaky', & don't deserve to be called 'scientific'!!!

@Carolus L "Poisoning the well, argue against straw men, misrepresent the opponent's position and spouting nonsense ...Krauss did the best he could with what he had."

Well spoken! They can't show any sign of weakness so they just double down on their argument hoping that will impress people. The only people it will impress are those who are already believers. It may make their supporters "feel good", but it won't win them any converts.

But like you said, he did the best with what he had. What more could you expect?

Ghost, "The real laughable ones are those claiming snowflakes contain no information"

Let me help you out a little here, apparition, it is true that you can measure a snowflake a thousand different ways. Your measurements are "information". Gather enough of them and you can make a replica of that snowflake.

However, the snowflake is not made from information, a cell is. Get that, in the cell the information comes first, then the cell. With the snowflake the flake comes first. 'Like that.

So lets try this riddle. All of the knowledge in all of the world could be assembled, using a code like ascii, as one huge number. If you put a decimal in front of that number, you get one very precise fraction. If you cut a stick to that exact fraction of a foot, a precise measurement of the length of the stick would contain all of the information in the world. With this formula, we see that every stick has its precise length. So precisely measuring every stick comes out with a new set of information. If we spend all day measuring sticks we might find one that contains the cure for cancer!?

Ghostrider Wrong. Theoretically the position of each molecule could be described = Shannon information. Just no one has bothered to do it yet.

I noticed your declining to state your credentials.

In using the position of each molecule as a piece of information you forgot to mention the accuracy of that piece of information, which means as an estimator, there is a human mind involved. The accuracy of information on position can theoretically be infinite, which is why I used the single quotes around 'information' in the previous quote. Notice how you not only forgot to mention accuracy but you did not mention all of the other examples in my description of various possible parameters. And why could you not throw in some additional ones in the interest of creative thinking? Like each molecule vibrates like a bedspring with the 'angle' between the 3 atoms and the 'distance' between them as time functions. You could have mentioned those as parametric time functions.

So in short, position or any parameter cannot be Shannon information without a statement of accuracy which would require a human mind. Proof: as accuracy increases without bound so does Shannon information as a digital representation (facsimile) of the parameter would accrue digits without bound.

You should have know all along that a parameter existing without a statement of accuracy (parameters of the gaussian distribution of estimators) cannot be Shannon information. So that a snowflake could never possess Shannon information as all the parameters we try to dream up for it from here until forever, and attach numbers to them, would only be estimators requiring a statement of accuracy of some kind for each one. And then the following year we could state better accuracy for the same snowflake, increasing Shannon information of our facsimile. All of this requires human minds. Which a snowflake does not have. You should have known all of this.

The difference to DNA is in the definition of position. In the case of DNA 'position' is the place in a sequence, requiring no estimator and statement of accuracy. Position in a sequence is a code and is definitely Shannon information as we uncover the sequence and state it.

You should have known this instead of coming on here and pretending to know all about information theory.

A person's credentials have nothing to do with the quality of his arguments. Only a childish egomaniac thinks credentials = automatically right. Is that why you bragged about yours?

I notice you were too cowardly to provide your definition of information as in applies to DNA and tell us how you quantify it. You blow lots of smoke to hide your inability to answer but that's all it is, empty bluster and blown smoke.

Mapou, I have heard anti evolutionist complain that evolution is just just-so stories. Are these the same just-so stories that are supported by population genetics, molecular biology, biogeography, etc., etc.?

I'll tell you what, Billy boy. As soon as you explain how natural selection solves the exponential combinatorial explosion problem that it must solve in order to account for life on earth, then I might think about answering your stupid, brain-dead question.

Nice dodge. What exponential combinatorial explosion problem is involved in the evolution of nylonase? Math is obviously not your strong suit. Maybe you should stick to calling everyone who disagrees with you a dirt worshipper. Beyond that, you are out of your depth.

Billy boy, the Darwinist cretin, is at it again. Look, the simplest bacterium has at least a hundred thousand base pairs. The number of possible mutations is in the order of 2^100,000. Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Doesn't information theory deal with possible outcomes? In the case of organism, possible means functioning. One snowflake functions just as well as another. But in the case of bio-polymers, the overwhelming majority of possible outcomes won't work, so they aren't really possible in a biological context. So a functioning protein does have a lot more information than a snowflake.

I notice you were too cowardly to provide your definition of information as in applies to DNA and tell us how you quantify it. You blow lots of smoke to hide your inability to answer but that's all it is, empty bluster and blown smoke.

Oh really now. Not providing MY "definition" of something is cowardly? Since when do I need to define something to you to not be a coward? The topic is the supposed 'information' in a snowflake. And not changing the subject to DNA makes one a coward?

A person's credentials have nothing to do with the quality of his arguments. Only a childish egomaniac thinks credentials = automatically right. Is that why you bragged about yours?

If you are going to tell degreed individuals that they don't know what Shannon information is, then the readers of this blog would like to know from what training of yours that comes from, and you were asked.

... childish egomaniac.... I notice you were too cowardly

See its all you guys have when you're seeing red and backed into a corner, personal attack. It happens all the time and I was hoping you would show your true colors here so thx for that. And you not knowing about the gaussian distribution of an estimator is the basis of the Shannon information of the estimator somehow makes the other guy a "coward"? And since when does your not knowing something tantamount to the other guy blowing smoke, genius? Either refute the other guy or you're just blowing smoke, not that it isn't obvious with your attempt at insult here.

I'm hoping this illustrates to you other readers that we're not about science with these guys, it's their religion that is driving them bonkers when their religion and their ignorance is being exposed. Ghostrider here likely had no idea of estimators, gaussian distributions of such and how the Shannon entropy of such is related. And when so informed the individual cannot refute but goes deranged with vituperation. Being angry and irrational in the corner ain't fun.

He ghostrider, you want to tell the other guys what the difference is between Shannon entropy (H) of an estimator, and (I) self- information of an estimator? I mean you want to come on here like you know all about this stuff, right?

I have clearly proven that the formula Information = Shannon is false. I am an information engineer (software developer). I know how to, using information alone, convert a word processing machine into a video editing machine. Do I have a good definition of information? Nope. Y'know they used to try to calculate the value of a computer programmer's work in "lines of code". What a lame excuse for a value of information. I have written an entire asteroids game, and entire lunar lander game and an entire draw program in 40 lines of "line basic". I have heard of people writing complete, dynamic games in a single line of code. Yet I know no metric that determines a "quality" value for information. Shannon does a pretty good job of determining quantity, but it is useless with quality as I demonstrated earlier.

About the challenge above, for most purposes of information both expressions are equivalent. The correct formula says that the quantity * (times) the quality of each statement are equal. When you can find a definition of data quality that satisfies this equation, then we will have one. In the mean time biologists don't know sh^* about information.

Ghost, this is a replay of the entire darwinist/ID debate, isn't it. You provide a definition, I falsify it. You say, "so what, you don't have a better definition". Well, your definition has been falsified, so you have bupkus too.

So, Darwinist, provide a non-falsifiable definition of DNA or we are on equal footing ('sept that I know I have no definition, you pretend you do.)

I already provided my definition of information as it applies to DNA. Crick defined it back in 1958. Under that accepted scientific definition it's trivially easy to show evolutionary processes can create new information.

Creationists are cowards who refuse to provide the definition on information in DNA they are using. That's because they know if they commit to a definition it can be tested and their idiocy falsified. Better to remain jello-like so they can't be pinned down.

"the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein."

Wow! That's quite the definition. It does not distinguish between genes and junk. By this definition, of course random processes can produce information.

BTW, I do not agree with the design theorists that state that natural processes cannot produce information. However, the quality of information that exists in the genome is, well, stunning. I don't have a formula to produce a numeric rating of quality, but I know it when I see it. There are about 20,000 protein coding genes in the human genome, there are well over 100,000 different proteins. Therefore, on average each gene makes at least 5 different proteins.

Now, shut up if you are planning to explain to me how exons work and other such mechanisms for producing this disparity. I've looked at multiple such mechanisms. These mechanisms exist, but I doubt that a plausible mutation by mutation pathway for any of them has been conjured up. (Though conjuring up hypothetical pathways is a Darwinian speciality.)

Your definition, and Shannon for that matter, does nothing to reference information quality. It appears to me that you don't acknowledge the concept of information quality. Until you can figure out how to do so, you have no credibility when speaking on the topic of information.

Wow! That's quite the definition. It does not distinguish between genes and junk. By this definition, of course random processes can produce information.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAH!

Looks like the 5 watt bulb finally came on for Mr. Creationist. Random genetic variations = new information. The new information that is retained in the population is that which is preserved after selection pressures.

Your definition, and Shannon for that matter, does nothing to reference information quality.

Define "information quality" and give a way to objectively measure it. The only rough approximation I know is that "good genetic information" helps you to survive and reproduce.

ghost, your version is much better than mine. It took on two mutations.

Ok, ghost, lets see if we can help you understand quality. There are a bunch of comments on this thread. Could you reasonably rate them on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being an irrelevant comment, 10 being most illuminating? Now I know that if 10 different people rated the comments, you would get 10 very different result sets, but I bet bones that some would consistently stand out as "better", and others consistently stand out as "worse". These comments, therefore, can be ordered by quality. If there is no scientific formula for ordering them by quality, that doesn't mean that the concept of comment quality is mystical, or imaginary -- does it.

Or ghostrider doesn't understand the concept of quality if quality can't (yet) be objectively measured. The day someone in mainstream science/math comes out with a method of objectively measuring information quality, poof, ghostrider will suddenly understand.

Krauss is not just clueless when it comes to the origin of life on earth. He's also clueless in his own field: theoretical physics. The following was copied from Uncommon Descent:

We must all note that Lawrence Krauss is the crackpot physicist who does not know that, as Karl Popper and others have noted, Einstein's spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. In this YouTube video, he claims that Einstein's physics allows time travel, even though every physicist worth his/her PhD should know by now that nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime:Is Time Travel Possible? Lawrence Krauss Tells all

Go figure. Krauss is also the proud author of "The Physics of Star Trek". What we have now in the physics community is a bunch of high falutin crackpots like Krauss, Hawking and Co spending billions of the taxpayer's money on Star Trek voodoo physics.

PS. In that YouTube video, Krauss claims that we are traveling in time toward the future all the time. This is the dumbest thing that a physicist can say. There is only the changing present. Time travel in any direction, forward or backward, is cretinous nonsense because it introduces an infinite self-referential regress.

Wait a minute. If energy from the sun is enough to evolve bacteria into blue whales then it should be enough to turn an abacus into a computer, or a skateboard into an SUV. But if I said that I left a bicycle in the sun and it turned into a motorcycel, people whould either say that I was a liar, or that I was insane.

ghostrider cant' get over the fact that we debate here and that he can't refute any of my assertions on information theory as it might relate to a snowflake, which is the topic of my first post, not DNA. Now you would think that a curious person would welcome my tutorial on the Shannon entropy of estimators, and how they, as random variables, are associated with a gaussian distribution, the parameters of which is a determination of Shannon entropy. Ghostrider did not know this thinking that something a simple as 'position' has Shannon entropy.

So instead of being appreciative of the new learning being spoonfed to the poor hurt ghostrider, he lashes out with insults, typical behavior of materialists. Instead of engaging the topic. Here I assume ghostrider male; women rarely behave in this manner.

Of course to his childish mind since he has an engineering degree, hear that, AN ENGINEERING DEGREE!! then he knows all there is about evolutionary biology.

Oh poor baby - so hurt he has to assert that I claim something never said about omniscience or anything like that.

Hey ghostrider I have more than one degree and am working on the thesis for a third.

And ghostrider you wanted me to define the Shannon information in a sector of DNA code. Why not this: write out the base sequence with the letter symbols. Run the code through a perfect lossless compression routine (which is an idealization). The number of characters in the compressed output, N relates to Shannon entropy as: H = log2(N)/log4(2).

Now you are welcome to calm down from your bluster, and instead of personal insult engage in refutation of the tutorial for you in our exchange OR give thanks for it. I did challenge you to comment on the self-information of estimators, since you know all about information theory. Now have at it genius, and maybe even refrain from the schoolyard stuff if you have the strength of personality for such.

ghostrider: Heh! More empty bluster by MSEE. Still no definition of information as it pertains to DNA. Still no description how he quantifies the information.

Here is the " description how he quantifies the information." This is to repeat what was already said. So ghostrider needs to refute, like explain why he thinks it incorrect:

MSEE: write out the base sequence with the letter symbols. Run the code through a perfect lossless compression routine (which is an idealization). The number of characters in the compressed output, N relates to Shannon entropy as: H = log2(N)/log4(2).

There it is plain as day guy. Now please refute, since you know all about information theory. And don't rule out a trick in my challenge on self-information of estimators. If it is a trick challenge, you should easily uncover the trick.

ghostrider: find a bit of courage to back up those creationist claims.

See it works like this. YOU have to identify to what creationist claims you refer, in quotes. DO IT

And don't rule out a trick in my challenge on self-information of estimators. If it is a trick challenge, you should easily uncover the trick.

Wow. Let me get this straight, you argue for religion by implying that Krauss is religiously driven? You don't understand thermodynamics so you try to mock it and your main point you were able to pull from the talk was an off-handed comment about a snowflake?

Krauss made a mockery of creation and you ignore that?

Calling people stupid is great but you need to back it up with something and, come on guys, asking for a person's credentials is stupid. Science doesn't work only if you have letters behind your name. If there's one thing that science has taught us it is that each argument needs to stand on its own - the truth has no concern for the arguer.

That Meyer went to bacteria flagellum, the Cambrian explosion and his other standard lines that have been completely destroyed is telling.

Thank god (all of the ones that man has ever created) that Meyer had a migraine - otherwise he'd have no excuse for his inane babble. I'll pretend that I haven't seen Meyer say the same crap, in no more interesting and compelling fashion, and pretend like it might have made a bit more sense had he not been in pain.

NO mention of Darwin, origins, evolution or anything like that, but somehow yours truly makes "inane creationist claims" and when asked for specific quote, ghostrider can't do it?

My next question is: does ghostrider make any attempt ever at reasoned discussion on here?

Now for the rest of you guys, ghostrider did not catch the error in my equation above, which he should have. The correct equation is H = N/log4(2). Really sorry ghostrider could not make that contribution. Well, not THAT sorry.

Next which I was hoping (not really) could show some effort on the part of ghostrider to do a little bit of work was to show the relationship between self-information and Shannon entropy for an estimator. It's pretty simple - just a check with Wikipedia (linked below) would show that self-information (I) is a property of discrete random variables, not continuous random variables which estimators are. Pointing that out was all he needed to do.

Now watch as ghostrider comes back with more insults 'cause he's really mad now. He should be banned. On second thought he's really valuable as an illustration of what happens when a person's religion is insulted. So let's keep him around.

MSEE it's obvious you are unable to follow the OP topic and provide your definition of information as it pertains to DNA. I provided the one used by science but you just can't seem to find your courage. But do keep blowing smoke waving those hands. It's pretty entertaining to watch you flail.

If argument is within the scientific realm of copy-pasta dogma regarding biology or geology, anything you say will be refuted by "millions of scientists" with a paste of their work.

If the argument involves anything other than the accepted dogma regarding biology or geology, insults or minimizations or other non-intellectual aspects of argument are used.

Like when I mentioned that Darwin revised his first edition of Origins to make it seem he discovered natural selection while on his voyages to cover up his plagiarism of another writer who wrote in detail about natural selection in trees, it was met with some sort of insult or another.

There are numerous apologetic arguments, while ultimately just an attempt to discredit and minimize the published descriptions of natural selection in their fullness, that could have been easily copy-pasta'd.

And the sad thing is, while atheist evolutionists may fancy themselves as free thinkers and so on, they are just pawns for destruction by the Jesuit-Freemason orders. Sounds like I've gone off my rocker, but here's what Albert Pike (33 degree) wrote in a letter to Mazzini August 15, 1871.

"We shall unleash the nihilist and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, ... [and bring] the destruction of [bible-believing] Christianity and atheism. Both conquered and exterminated at the same time." (Forth Reich of the Rich, pp 71, 72).